At Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:00:59 +0200,
Jarkko Nikula wrote:
>
> We have a few cases where we want to access struct device dev field in
> struct acpi_device from generic code that is build also without CONFIG_ACPI.
>
> Provide here a minimal struct acpi_device stub that allows to build such a
> code without adding new #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI churn. This should not increase
> section sizes if code is protected by ACPI_COMPANION() runtime checks as
> those will be optimized out by later compiler stages in case CONFIG_ACPI is
> not set.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Rafael, instead of this we could also have an accessor but adev->dev looked
> better in actual code and size vmlinux didn't change for x86_64_defconfig
> with CONFIG_ACPI is not set nor for omap2plus_defconfig.
This looks too hackish, IMO. Defining a different dummy struct often
gives more headaches. Thinking of the potential risk by misuses, it'd
be simpler and safer to define a macro like acpi_dev_name() instead.
BTW, is linux/device.h already included in !CONFIG_ACPI case?
Takashi
> ---
> include/linux/acpi.h | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/acpi.h b/include/linux/acpi.h
> index 0da49ed..df444e1 100644
> --- a/include/linux/acpi.h
> +++ b/include/linux/acpi.h
> @@ -414,6 +414,10 @@ static inline bool acpi_driver_match_device(struct device *dev,
>
> #else /* !CONFIG_ACPI */
>
> +struct acpi_device {
> + struct device dev;
> +};
> +
> #define acpi_disabled 1
>
> #define ACPI_COMPANION(dev) (NULL)
> --
> 1.8.4.2
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alsa-devel mailing list
> Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
